JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.C. to G.P. VI for the respondents. 2. The original writ petitioner has died during the pendency of the writ petition and thereafter the wife of the petitioner has been substituted as the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondent for finalizing of the pension and gratuity giving two times bound promotion and refund of gratuity amount which was recovered with the allegation of excess payment after his retirement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as sweeper in the Government Primary Health Centre, Tamar on 8.9.1962 and he retired from his service on 31.5.1999. It is stated that the petitioner was provided second time promotion provisionally on completion of 25 years of service vide letter dated 29.10.1997. He finally retired on 31.5.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs. 19,446/- has been deducted from the gratuity amount of the petitioner without any notice or intimation to him. Further, he submits that the amount has been allowed by the authorities and there is no misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner and that is why the recovery is bad in the eye of law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. VI for the respondents submit that the service of the petitioner was came in regular establishment in the year 21.01.1974 and after 10 years of service he was granted first time of promotion with effect from 20.01.1984 and second time bound promotion would be provided to the petitioner after completion of 25 years i.e. on 20.01.1999. He further submits that the second time bound promotion was inadvertently granted to the petitioner in the year 1987 whereas it is required to be provided w.e.f. 20.01.1999 due to this the recovery order was passed. By referring the paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, he further submits that after retirement the pension and service book of the petitioner was sent to the Accountant General, Patna and the pension of the petitioner has been fixed as Rs. 1444/- per months by the Accountant General, Patna. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that so far as recovery of Rs. 1444/- per months by the Accountant General, Patna. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that so far as recovery of Rs. 19,446/- is concerned that is not sustainable as it was granted without any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund Rs. 19446/- to the petitioner forthwith. So far as pension is concerned, it is mentioned in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit that Rs. 1444/- per month fixed as pension. Thus on the statement made by the respondents in the counter-affidavit regarding pension, there is no order need to be passed. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.